ALANO v.

CA By:
GR No. 111244
December 15, 1997 Topic: Judicial Admission
Ponente: J. Romero
DOCTRINE

 A stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the
parties and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to
contest or dispute the veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit.
 The stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial order amounts to an admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of his right to present
evidence on his behalf. While it is true that the right to present evidence is guaranteed under the Constitution, this right may be waived
expressly or impliedly.
Facts

 In the Criminal Case, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Arturo Alano,” Alano was accused of defrauding Roberto S. Carlos. He pretended
to be still the owner of a parcel of land located at Bicutan, Taguig well knowing that he had previously sold the same to the said Carlos for
P30,000, sold the aforesaid property for the second time to one Erlinda Dandoy for P87,900.
 Alano moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there was a prejudicial question pending resolution in another
case being tried in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.
 In the aforementioned Civil Case, Carlos filed a complaint against Alano seeking the annulment of the second sale of said parcel of land
made by Alano to a certain Erlinda Dandoy on the premise that the said land was previously sold to them.
 In his answer, petitioner contends that he never sold the property to the private respondents and that his signature appearing in the deed
of absolute sale in favor of the latter was a forgery, hence, the alleged sale was fictitious and inexistent.
 At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that the civil case was filed on March 1, 1985, five years before June 19, 1990 when the criminal
case for estafa was instituted.
 RTC: Denied the motion for the suspension of the criminal case
 CA: Dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for lack of merit

Issue/s

1. Whether or not the stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence binding
upon the parties. YES.

2. Whether or not the stipulation of facts stated in a pre-trial order amounts to an admission by a party resulting in the waiver of his right to present
evidence on his behalf. YES.

Ruling

A stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties
and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute
the veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit.

Accordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial order amounts to an admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of his right to
present evidence on his behalf. While it is true that the right to present evidence is guaranteed under the Constitution, this right may be waived
expressly or impliedly.

Since the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, the same is subject to a waiver by virtue of the
prior acts of the accused. After all, the doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can
be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right and without detriment to the community at large.

Accordingly, petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal amounts to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the
civil case. Hence, we have no reason to nullify such waiver, it being not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the pre-trial order was signed by the petitioner
himself. As such, the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing applies.

Notes